1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on June 14, 2016 between the Defendant and B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 4, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,00 to B as “3.79% per annum, 12% per annum, and 20% per annum, and June 4, 2018,” respectively.

(In light of the plaintiff's argument, the principal and interest of bonds as of April 6, 2017 are KRW 29,953,03).

B On June 20, 2016, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage contract was completed on June 14, 2016 by the Cheongju District Court (No. 4112) No. 4112 as to each real estate listed in the attached list to the Defendant.

(hereinafter) The aforementioned mortgage contract is called the “mortgage creation contract of this case,” and the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case is called the “registration of establishment of mortgage of this case”).

B was in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the result of the order to submit taxation information to the branch office of this Court to the branch office of the court, and the fact-finding results of the court's fact-finding on each credit union

2. The debtor's act of offering real estate, one of the creditors, which has already been in excess of his/her obligation, as collateral for his/her claim, becomes a fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation in relation to other creditors unless there are other special circumstances. In cases where the debtor's act of offering security to a third party is objectively fraudulent act, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff as to B

1.(a)

Since the claim stated in the claim was held, it is recognized that the preserved claim for the exercise of creditor's right of revocation is recognized, and B concluded the mortgage contract of this case with the defendant in excess of the obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the contract to establish a mortgage of this case shall be cancelled, and the defendant shall restore the original state to B.